Someday I need to learn to post pictures in a post itself, but this will do for now.

I'm not making light of this topic, but I can't imagine that he's seriously intending to attack us directly. I can't quite decide what to make of this - is it just posturing, or is he really that flippin' nuts?

My only real concern about him is that he'll succeed in making a WMD and sell it to someone who WILL try to use it on us.

Opinions?

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

I worry about rulers of totalitarian states. Because I know they know that if they are seen to knuckle under to the Evil West, then its the short track to revolt and the loss of all their palaces and power. So they HAVE to push, and push, and keep pushing - and may just be unstable enough to think "well, if the alternatives are the destruction of my country, OR I lose all my money and hookers........" they will choose the former.

The problem with WMDs, especially nukes, is that we thought they were to complicated and expensive to develop for your average country. Now it seems it is not that hard. The old term, suitcase nuke, is prob the one we need to be most concerned with. I would not be surprised to see countries we don't like with a drone program soon also.

I advocate using photoshop propaganda to send to all of the muslim countries. They should include pictures of Kim Jong Un burning the Quran and fake north Korean cartoons of Muhammad. Then the suicide bombers would get Kim. No nukes necessary!

I'm having a hard time deciding if this is just political theater, or if this is something that needs to be taken more seriously. It's hard to have a confident opinion, given the lack of reliable information out of N Korea. It's a weird situation.

Anfauglir's post hit what I'm thinking about this. A totalitarian regime require that it's subjects have limited access to information, and that they are kept in a state of fear of "the enemy"; in this case, us. So much of what occurs in politics really is theater (notice how little the US is talking about the economy and jobs lately?), and governments often have to take some sort of action to appear to be doing something. In the case of N Korea, I often wonder if the seeming bluster is just to keep the people aligned in their support, or if he's really that far over the edge.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

1- If they have/use nukes they may indeed do some damage launching a surprise attack. Almost certainly they will send one or two at Seoul, SK. And maybe get a few in the air for Hawawii, Japan and wherever, but that will be the end cause The US and others will just bomb the shit out af anything that even looks like it is connected with a missle.

2- A ground invasion of SK. Hope SK has enough troops to handle this cause we don't have enough personal and equipment there right now. NK could use nukes to neutralize any SK ground game. The question will be how many nukes does NK have and how will they use them.

In coventional military terms - no NK is not a serious threat. A ground invasion by them of SK would be bloody and horrible but short-lived. Soviet-era equipment and tactics will not prevail against modern US and SK equipment specifically designed to overcome an opponent that can field numerical superiority.

After the Korean war of the the fifties, where both sides fielded similar weapons technology and they fought each other to a standstill, the US really upped their game to extract maximum technological advantage because they realised that a war in Western Europe would be disastrous if fought on technical parity with the Warsaw Pact. Gulf Wars I and II proved the effectiveness of technology in face of numbers.

Plus AFAIK the NKs have no indiginous POL supplies and rely on imports, target their stockpiles, their logistics and their 3c and they grind to a halt very quickly.

Where they potentially are genuinely dangerous is in nuclear warfare. However, there is a simple solution; make it absolutely clear that a nuclear attack on the US will result in NK being glassed over.

The one thing NK has going for it is its terrain. They've dug deep into moutain sides and hidden much of their medium & long range artillery and rockets/missiles there. Roll out for a quick barrage, roll back in for safety. Very tough to target, but easy to defend (even against nukes).

A war with NK would be unlike wars with Iraq/Afghanistan. About the only chance of a sweeping strategic success against NK would be with a coordinated coalition of US, SK, and Chinese military forces; without China in the fight, the best you'll get is a protracted mess.

Logged

There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.-- Bernie Katz

The one thing NK has going for it is its terrain. They've dug deep into moutain sides and hidden much of their medium & long range artillery and rockets/missiles there. Roll out for a quick barrage, roll back in for safety. Very tough to target, but easy to defend (even against nukes).

That's really only an issue if the US and SK go on the offensive into NK territory in response to NK attacks. I suspect a more likely scenario is to drop back far enough to be beyond artillery range and expose the NK logistics chain, cut it, then grind their first echelon into meat and wait for the internal backlash to turn NK into an anarchic shambles.

Even if the US and SK were forced into an offensive against well dug-in mountain redoubts, the US has spent the last 10 years or so developing weapons and tactic to deal with such positions as a result of their experiences in Tora Bora.

We have radar that detects incoming shells. It calculates their origin instantly. The counter strike is often in the air before the original ordinance even hits the ground. And even if they can get their guns back in the caves before our smart bombs destroy them, good luck getting them back out.

Considering how ruthless they are with their own people I would say they're a definite threat. Crazy is as crazy does. Though they likely don't have long range weapons, the fact that they could cause damage to any neighbouring country should give everyone pause.

Kim Jong Un spent a lot of his adolescent life away from NK - I wonder if he's really committed to war or if he's truly a puppet for the military regime? I mean, he has to know the western world isn't as "bad" as their propaganda says it is.

My own opinion? Topple the bastards and free the people, especially those in the gulags. Awful, awful stuff.

E.

Logged

'O pitiful shadow lost in the darkness,Bringing torment and pain to others. O damned soul wallowing in your sin.Perhaps it is time to die?'

Even if the US and SK were forced into an offensive against well dug-in mountain redoubts, the US has spent the last 10 years or so developing weapons and tactic to deal with such positions as a result of their experiences in Tora Bora.

In Afghanistan, the US had complete air superiority in the first minutes of the first day of the war and could bomb at will. NK has one of the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world. Kicking down the door there will be nothing like Afghanistan. And the NK cave systems are not the relatively crude holes carved by militant goat herders. The NK cave systems are concrete reinforced, Cheyeene Mountain-style systems with blast doors and long range artillery on quick reaction rails.

I'm not saying the US and it's allies lack the capability to wipe-out NK; it just it will be far different than the wars the US has been involved in for the last 20 years.

Logged

There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.-- Bernie Katz